Difference between revisions of "Spaced proof review as a way to invent novel proofs"
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | one of the great things about proof cards is that when you prove something after months of not seeing it, you sometimes come up with a novel proof! this happened with one of my group theory proofs, to prove that a nonempty subset of a finite group that is closed under multiplication is a subgroup. the proof walkthrough in pinter's book does an artificial bijection type thing, whereas i found it much more natural to consider the sequence x, x^2, x^3, ... and then to show that it's closed under inverses. if i had just gone through the book on my own, i would have followed the walkthrough, forgotten pinter's trick, and i would have never found this more-natural-to-me proof! | + | one of the great things about proof cards is that when you prove something after months of not seeing it, you sometimes come up with a novel proof ([[creative forgetting]])! this happened with one of my group theory proofs, to prove that a nonempty subset of a finite group that is closed under multiplication is a subgroup. the proof walkthrough in pinter's book does an artificial bijection type thing, whereas i found it much more natural to consider the sequence x, x^2, x^3, ... and then to show that it's closed under inverses. if i had just gone through the book on my own, i would have followed the walkthrough, forgotten pinter's trick, and i would have never found this more-natural-to-me proof! |
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
* [[Spaced proof review as a way to understand key insights in a proof]] | * [[Spaced proof review as a way to understand key insights in a proof]] | ||
− | [[Category: | + | ==What links here== |
+ | |||
+ | {{Special:WhatLinksHere/{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[Category:Spaced repetition]] |
Latest revision as of 01:44, 23 July 2021
one of the great things about proof cards is that when you prove something after months of not seeing it, you sometimes come up with a novel proof (creative forgetting)! this happened with one of my group theory proofs, to prove that a nonempty subset of a finite group that is closed under multiplication is a subgroup. the proof walkthrough in pinter's book does an artificial bijection type thing, whereas i found it much more natural to consider the sequence x, x^2, x^3, ... and then to show that it's closed under inverses. if i had just gone through the book on my own, i would have followed the walkthrough, forgotten pinter's trick, and i would have never found this more-natural-to-me proof!